F 




- lS:cf z - 



i^crti* mtpi^tn ISAt)^Uev^ 




Class. 
Book 



£47 



3.LL. 






REV. STEPHEN BACHILER. 



BY 



CHARLES E. BATCHELDER. 









Eeprinted from the N.-E. Historical and Genealogical Register for January, 1892. 



REV. STEPHEN BACHILER. 



TnE word " bachelor " has long been a soro puzzle to etymologists, says 
Lower, in his work on English Surnames.* That the name " Bachelor," 
however spelled, is the same as the word " bachelor," meaning an unmarried 
man or a college graduate, is unquestioned, but many derivations have been 
given by different authors to account for the meaning of the word, some 
most fanciful and even grotesque, others with more probability of correct- 
ness. . Knights bachelors were the most ancient, though the lowest order, 
of knighthood in England. 

It is said in a note to Chitty's Blackstone that the most probable deriva- 
tion of " bachelor " is from has and chevalier, an inferior knight.f 

The derivation of the word is given in Webster's Dictionary as from the 
old French " bachiler," meaning " a young man." A common derivation 
given is from " baccalaureus," having reference to the chaplet of laurel 
berries with which the new bachelor of arts was crowned. The earliest 
mention of the name indicates that it was given originally to mark the con- 
dition of its possessor as an unmarried man or as a young man, when there 
was an elder person of the same Christian name living in the neighborhood. 
The English registers of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, where we 
first meet the'name, use the French prefix " le." Thus we find Jordauus 
le Bacheler,t Gilbert le Bacholer,§ that is, Jordan the bachelor, Gilbert 
the bachelor. We may be reasonably sure that the names Jordan and Gil- 
bert were then so common in a particular neighborhood that it was neces- 
sary to indicate by some addition to the Jordan or Gilbert that there was 
an elder or married person of the same name in the immediate neighbor- 
hood. If " Bachelor " meant simply an unmarried man it was not proper 
or fitting at the death of Jordan le Bacheler in 1297, for he left surviving 
him a wife, Alice, and a son, John. It is, therefore, probable that the word 
" Bachelor" was used at tiiat time much like junior, meaning simply "the 
younger," and though at first given to an unmarried man was not dropped 
upon marriage, as it was a convenient and not inappropriate designation of 
the younger, whether single or married. At a later period the " le," being 
superriuous, was dropped, and in 1433 we find John Bacheler returned iu 
the commissioners' list of the gentry of Norfolk, Englaud, though John y° 
Baschealer died at Kelsale in Suffolk, Feb. 1, 1552.11 

We do not know where the fiimily originated. There is the usual family 
tradition, which bears on its face the marks of im|)robability, that three 
brothers by the name of Bachiler served under William the Conqueror and 
were rewarded after the battle of Hastings iu 10G6 by a grant of land in 
Wiltshire. For sign manual they were given a shield upon which were 
three boar's heads, united by three links, a spear above them couchant. 
There was no crest, indicating that they were private soldiers. 

• Lower's Patronymica Brittanica, 20. 

t Note to puge 404. 

J Calendarium GcneaioRioum, 1297. 

<} Rotiili ClaiiSiirHin in Tiirri Loiuloncnsf. 

^ Rcgtstcrs of the Parish of Kelsale, Suffolk. 



Before 1600 we find the family name in the counties of Kent, Surrey, 
Sussex, Wilts, Hampshire, Bucks, Middlesex, Norfolk and Suffolk, all in 
the south-eastern part of England. Very few are found north of London. 
The earliest mention of the name is found in Surrey, and very probably 
Surrey or Sussex was the earliest home of the Bachilers. 

It is impossible, at present, to trace the relationship, if any existed, be- 
tween the early Bachiler families in England, or to decide whether the first 
emigrants of that name to America were kindred. The Ipswich and Salem 
emigrants were brothers. The names associated in some of the early Eng- 
lish families indicate that Alexander Bacheler, the emigrant, of Portsmouth, 
was a relative of the Salem and Ipswich Bachilers, as Mark Bacheller of 
Brading, in the Isle of Wight, died about 1614, leaving a brother Alexan- 
der Bacheller, two sons, John Bacheller the elder and John Bacheller the 
younger, and three daughters.* Mark was a family name among the Salem 
Bachilers, but neither that name nor Alexander has been found elsewhere in 
the English families. Such evidence is of course slight, but is worth noting 
in the absence of more convincing facts. It is probable that other relation- 
ship existed between some of the Bachiler emigrants, but further and more 
careful search must be made in England before this interesting question of 
relationship can be settled. 

There were seven immigrants of the Bachiler name : 

1. Alexander of Poi'tsmouth, N. H. 

2. Rev. Stephen of Lynn, Mass., and Hampton, N. H. 

3. Hemy of Ipswich, Mass. 

4. Joseph of Salem, Mass. (now Wenham). 

5. John of Salem, Mass. 

6. William of Charlestown, Mass. 

7. John of Watertown, Dedham and Reading, Mass. 

There are living descendants of the Bachiler name from four of these 
immigrants, namely, Rev. Stephen, Joseph and John of Salem, and John of 
Reading. 

It is not proposed in this article to give a sketch of the lives of any of 
these first settlers, except that of Rev. Stephen Bachiler, and in his case 
about all that can be done is to rearrange the old material, add some new 
facts, recently discovered, and correct the numerous and gross errors in 
regard to his immediate descendants. 

The treatment accorded to those early citizens of Massachusetts Bay, 
who fell under " suspicion," at the hands of their more othodox brethren, 
has been so long frankly acknowledged and the causes so thoroughly ex- 
plained, that it can no longer be considered derogatory to the Massachusetts 
Commonwealth to speak plainly concerning the treatment of Williams, 
Wheelwright and other disturbers of the Puritan State. To do otherwise 
would be affectation. There was intolerance on the part of the Bay Colony 
and also on the side of " the suspected." The latter should have withdrawn 
voluntarily from the settlement previously occupied by the church-state 
party, and the former had not then learned that the sure way to perpetuate 
neterodoxy is to persecute and punish its adherents. Naturally the Massa- 
chusetts historians have chronicled the virtues of the clergymen who upheld 
the Massachusetts plan, and the opponents of that plan, being neglected, 
were speedily forgotten. It is said of Samuel Skelton of Salem, Mass., 
" Little has come down to us concerning him, owing, it is said, to the fact 

* Will of Mark Bacheller, Probate Registry, Winchester, Hants. 



that * he differed about clerical associations and other subjects, from most 
of the principal persons in Massachusetts.' "* 

We know that Stephen Bachiler contended, with a vigor and earnest- 
ness unusual for a man of his years, against tlie Puritan doctrine of a 
religious commonwealth, against that union of church and state to which 
they clung as to the ark of their safety,t and which has since been univer- 
sally conceded to be a lamentable error. 

He lived to see the beginning of the downfall of that " experiment fraught 
with evil," as the halfway covenant, allowing baptized persons, not church 
members, upon assenting to the church covenant, to have all the rights of 
members, except communion, was approved by the Synod called in Massa- 
chusetts in 16574 

We know further that^he most zealously maintained the rights of the 
New Hampshire settlements in their contest with Massachusetts, which 
ended in IGll in the control of the weaker province by the stronger. 
Whatever material advantages were secured by New Hampshire, through 
this union of the colonics, and they were by no m^ans inconsiderable, were 
valued little by those ardent friends of New Hampshire, who resisted the 
aggressions of the Bay colony. 

The great wrong done New Hampshire by the attempt to pervert the 
Massachusetts charter so as to include all territory south of an east and 
west line through the head of the Merrimack, could never be condoned by 
any advantages arising from the union. Stephen Bachiler staked his 
fortunes on the continued independence of the New Hampshire settlements, 
and lost. If the cause he championed had prevailed, he would to-day be 
remembered with gratitude as one of the stoutest champions of New Hamp- 
shire, and his life would undoubtedly have been materially different. 

He had settled Hampton under the authorization of Massachusetts, yet 
his subsequent acts show that he never supposed either of the Massachusetts 
claims to Hampton well founded. He knew it was not within their patent, 
nor vacant land first occupied by I\Iassachusetts.§ Why then did he pro- 
cure a grant from the General Court of Massachusetts and act under their 
directions ? It was because he had already felt their displeasure and thought 
the grant might be in some way a protection to himself and his company in 
making the settlement. But it is not worth while to discuss these matters 
at length, as they excited great bitterness once, though now, happily, long 
settled and entire good feeling prevails between the two states. 

Stephen Bachiler, for so he always wrote his name, was born somewhere 
in England in the year 1561. At the age of twenty he entered St. John's 
College, Oxford. He was matriculated November 17, 1581, and admitted 
as Bachelor of Arts February 3, 1585-6. The leading profession for col- 
lege graduates in that day was that of a clergyman, and he determined to 
study for the ministry, being then a member of the establish»3d cinircli. 
Apparently the time between his graduation in February, 1585-6, and July, 
17, 1587, was spent in preparation for his life work, for on the day last 
named, the death of Edward Parrett, vicar of Wherwell in Hants, making 
a vacancy in that living, he was presented with the jilace by William West, 
Lord Lawarr (or de la Warr as it was written later), and became vicar 

• Spraptie's American Pulpit, Vol. I. 8. 
t Story's Com. Settlement of Salem, Mass., 3t. 
+ 1 Sprague's Am. Pulpit, Int. xx. and xxi. 

6 Sec reply of Mjiss. to the remonstrance of Exeter at the settlement of Hampton. 
Wint. N. E„ vol. i.* 290, 303, 304. 



of the Church of Holy Cross and St. Peter * On the 26th of Jannar: . 
1587-8, the new incumbent compounded for the payment of the first frui' 
of the vicarage. 

The village of Wherwell stretches along the westerly bank of that " trout- 
ful stream " the Test, in Hampshire, three and one half miles from Ando- 
ver. Very great historical interest attaches to this retired town and its 
ancient monastery. Wherwell Abbey has been the home or the abiding 
place of three and perhaps four English queens, who were renowned for 
their extraordinary beauty. The parish of Wherwell hardly had any ex- 
istence apart from the Abbey down to the year 1543, for until that time* 
the Superior of the Monastery was Lady of the Manor, and owned the 
whole village and a large part of the neighborhood. The same church 
served for the parish and the monastery, with presumably a chapel for 
parochial services as at Romsey. It had also a chapel with a special en- 
trance which was appropriated to the " Priory " as a pew. The earliest 
mention of Wherwell, or Whorewell, as it was then called, is found in the 
will of King Edred, A.D. 946, 955. He gave the town to the new Mon- 
astery, subsequently called Hyde Abbey. In the year 986 -^Ifrida founded 
Wherwell Abbey for Benedictine nuns in penitence for the bloodshed in 
which she had been concerned. In the chartulary of Wherwell Abbey the 
story is thus told : " And in the place, which by the inhabitants is called 
Wherwell, founded the Church of the Holy Cross, beseeching Christ, that 
He who, wounded on the (ever) memorable Cross, shed His blood for the 
redemption of the human race, might deign to grant her the pardon (pur- 
chased) by His death, His wounds, and by the shedding of His blood rich 
(in graces )."t 

Wherwell contains five hundred and forty-one inhabitants, and must have 
been a very retired spot until- the London and South Western Railroad ran 
a branch line through the town about the year 1883, and built a very sub- 
stantial and commodious station at Fallerton in the parish of Wherwell. 
Many of the residences, and especially the old court house near the station, 
are of early date and look as if they had not changed appreciably in three 
centuries. The old Parish Church of Holy Cross and St. Peter was pulled 
down and rebuilt in 1858. The old building was repaired after the Re- 
formation with the best portions of the Abbey ruins. With the exception 
of some fragments of mouldings, one monumental effigy, and parts of two 
monuments, there are absolutely no traces of the old church.J 

Of Stephen Bachiler's life at Wherwell we know nothing. The Church 
records were begun in 1634, or at all events no earlier records now exist. 
We only know that he remained here until 1605, for on the ninth day of 
August, 1605, John Bate, A.M., clergyman, was appointed Vicar of Wher- 
well, a vacancy existing because of " the ejection of Stephen Bachiler," the 
last vicar.§ Not much more is known of his life in England, from the loss 
of his living at Wherwell to the spring of 1632, when he sailed for New 
England. He was excommunicated from the church, and so no church 
record exists showing his abiding places. Probably he preached to dif- 
ferent congregations, not in a settled way, but when he could avoid the 
persecution of the church people. Occasionally we get a glimpse of hi» 
location. In 1610 he appears to be still a "clergyman of the County of 

* Bishop's Rc{:cistry, Winchester, Eng. Register of Thomas Cooper, 10. 

t The Story of Wherwell Abbey, 4. 

j The Story of Wherwell Abbey, 11. 

§ Bishop's Uegistry, WiucheBter, Eiig. Register of Thomas Bilson, 18. 



Southampton."* On the 11th of June, 1621, Adam Winthrop's diary 
shows that he " had Mr. Bachelour, the preacher " to dine with him, pre- 
sumably at Groton in Suffolk. This may have been the subject of this 
sketch. 

Some of the parishioners of Barton Stacey in Hampshire, a few miles 
east of Wherwell, listened to his sermons at some time before 1G32, for we 
find that Sir Robert Paine petitioned the Council, stating that he was sheriff 
of Hants iu that year and was also chosen churchwarden of Barton Stucey, 
and that " some of the parishioners, petitioner's tenants, having been for- 
merly misled by Stephen Bachelor, a notorious inconformist, had demolished 
a consecrated chapel at Newton Stacey, neglected the repair of their parish 
church, maliciously opposed petitioner's intent (to repair the church at his 
own charge), and executed many things in contempt of the canons and the 
bishop.f Once more we hear from him on the 23d of June, 1631, when, at 
the age ef seventy years, he obtains leave to visit his sons and daughters in 
Flushing. He was then resident at South Stoneham, in the County of 
Southampton, and desires that his wife Helen, aged forty-eight years, 
and his daughter, Ann Saudburn, of age thirty years, widow, resident in 
the Strand, might accompany him. He was to return within two months. J 

It would be interesting to know which of his sons and daughters then 
lived at Flushing, as Deborah Wing was apparently residing in London in 
November, 1629, when her husband, John Wing, made his will and pre- 
sumably she was appointed executrix of the will when it was proved 
August 4, 1630, as Mr. Waters makes no note that administration was 
granted to any other person than the executrix named in the will.§ 

Stephen Bachiler was excommunicated among the earliest of the non- 
conformists. On the death of Elizabeth in 1603, James I. of the house of 
Stuart came to the throne. In January, 1604, the famous Hampton Court 
conference was held, when King James uttered his angry threat against 
the Puritans, " I will make them conform or I will harry them out of the 
kingdom." 

The next year the King's threat was carried out against Mr. Bachiler, 
and no doubt he was thoroughly "harried" after his excommunication. 
Wiuthrop says that Bachiler " had suffered much at the hands of the 
bishops."ir 

As early as 1630 Bachiler had determined to leave England and settle 
in America. At all events he made preparation for such removal. Mave- 
rick, in his Description of New England, says " there was a patent granted 
to Christo: Batchelo"' and Company** in the year 1632 or thereabouts,tt 
for the mouth of the River (Sagadahocke) and some tract of land adjacent 
who came over in the ship named the Plough, and termed themselves the 
Plough Compauie, but soon scattered, some for Virginia, some for England, 
some to the Massachusetts never settling on that land."tt 

"The Plough ship of sixty tons on the 6th day of July, 1631, arrived at 

• Records of Magdalen Coll. Oxford, Eng., June, 1610, admitting Stephen Bachiler, 
aged 16 years, son of a clergyman of Hampshire, 
t Domestic Calendar of State Papers, 1635. 

I Registek, July, 1891, page 237. 
f Rkoisteu, JuIv, 1891, page 237. 

II Winthrop's N, E. ii.« 44. 

•♦ This must mean Chrispe, Batchclor and Company. John Chrispe or Crispe, as the 
name was commonly written, and Stephen Bachiler were grantees named in the patent. 

tt Hulihard says, in 1030. A contemporary MSS. in the possession of the Maine Hist. 
Society, gives thcexact date as June 26, 10:30. Sic Maine H. I't G. Rec, vol. ii. 66. 

t; Maverick's Description of New England, Registeu, vol. 39, p. 35. 



8 

Natascott [Nantasket]. She brought ten passengers from London. They 
came with a jjatent to Sagadahock : but not liking the place they came 
hither. Most of them proved familists and vanished away."* 

It has been said that this grant was afterwards called the province of 
Lygonia, after Cicely Lygon, the mother of Sir Ferdinando Gorges ; but 
Maverick says there was a patent granted for this (Casco) Bay some years 
since by the title of the Province of Ligonia to Collonel Alexander Rigby, 
which is no doubt true. It is earnestly to be hoped that this Plough patent 
or a copy will sometime be discovered. At present it is impossible to de- 
fine the extent of the grant or to prove beyond question what territory was 
occupied under it. Hubbard says it was south of the Sagadahock River and 
twenty miles from the sea side, yet all agree that the original grant was 
forty miles square. Two contemporary writers say it was a patent for 
Sagadahock.f Two islands in the River Sagadahock, near the south side 
thereof, about sixty miles from the sea, are included in the grant, but no 
such islands exist. 

Great ignorance of our geography was shown in making the early grants, 
and they frequently overlap earlier grants. Sagadahock was a very elastic 
word in early days. It was applied to the river formed by the union of 
the Kennebec and Androscoggin, also to the region about that river, pro- 
bably on both sides, like the present county of Sagadahock, and in later 
times to all the land east of the Sagadahock River to the St. Croix.| 

It seems most probable that the Plough grant began at the mouth of the 
Sagadahock, ran inland on that river and the Androscoggin forty miles in 
a straight line, but sixty measured on the river, and forty miles south and 
a like distance back from the Ocean. This was found to overlap earlier 
grants, which had been so frequently made of Sagadahock.§ 

* Winthrop's N. E., i.« 58, Prince 357. The last clause was added long after its date by 
Winthrop or a later hand. It has served as a basis for a careless Maine writer to charge 
that Stephen Bachiler was a familist. Fortunately other manifest errors in the same article 
indicate its untrustworthiness. It is evident that the members of the Plough company whc 
came over in 1632 were not familists. The fact is that many of the earlier settlers of New 
England were of bad reputation. Hundreds of ignorant, starving creatures were taken 
from the streets and sent over by unscrupulous adventurers, and innumerable convicts 
were set free on condition of emigrating to New England. The later colonists, especially 
those coming in the great movement between 1630 and 1640, were much superior to the 
earlier immigrants. Winthrop would have known and mentioned the fact if Bachiler had 
been tainted with familism. In matters of opinion, that is of belief, Dalton and Bachiler 
agreed, says Winthrop. Who ever heard that Dalton entertained familistic opinions ? The 
charge is ridiculous and utterly unsupported. 

+ MS. No. 3418 Brit. Museum and Col. Papers, Pub. Rec. Office, ii. 16. 

t See grant by Charles II. in 1664 to his brother James, Duke of York, of Sagadahock, 
80 called, including all that land except a small tract at Pemaquid. 

§ Granted by Elizabeth in 1578 to Sir Humphrey Gilbert, renewed in 1584 to Sir Walter 
Raleigh. By the French monarch in 1603 to the Sieur de Monts. Granted about 1607 to 
the Plymouth Company. Renewed and enlarged in 1620. Under this grant Popham's 
settlement was made. Grant of 1622 of the Province of Maine to Sir F. Gorges. Curi- 
ously enough he proposed to devote forty square miles at the mouth of the Sagadahock to a 
pul)lic plantation to be called the " State County." Grant of Edward Gorges to Thomas 
Lewis and Capt. Richard Bonylhon, 12 Feb. 1629, four miles long by eight miles inland on 
the north side of Sagadahock. Grant to the Plough Company 1630. Grant from the ex- 
piring Council for New England to Sir F. Gorges in 1635 from the Piscataqua to the Saga- 
dahock. Grant of ten thousand acres to Mason in 1635, lying southeast of Sagadahock. 
Ryall's grant from Gorges about 1639. Revival of Plough patent in 1643 by Cleeve as 
deputy for Rigby. Several of these grants were in general terms covering other territory. 

Vines says in a letter to Winthrop, January 9, 1643, that Cleeve extended his govern- 
ment " from Sackadchock to Cape Porpus, being aboue 13 leagues in length." Jenncr in a 
letter to Winthrop, dated 6. 2m. '16, mentions "the tract of land which Mr. Cleeve doth 
challeng by vcrtue of his Patent, viz. from Sacadehock River to Cape Porpus," and says 
that Jocelyn, who succeeded Cleeve, claimed " that Mr. Cleeve his terminus a quo should 



9 

When the territory was actually settled it was found that the bounds 
could only extend from the west side of Cape Porpoise to the east side of 
Cape Klizabeth, a distance less tlian twenty miles, as Casco and most of the 
territory east of the Sagadahock had been previously occupied under other 
grants. 

At the very beginning of 1G32 Mr. Rachiler left England for liostoii in 
New England. lie sailed on the Uth of March, K^Jl-'i, in the vessel 
calleil the William and Francis, from L()n<lon. with sixty passengers, and 
after eighty-eight dreary days landed at Hoston. Among his ftdlow travel- 
lers were Gov. Edward AVinslow of Plymouth, Hov. Thomas James, Rev. 
Thonvas Welde and Thomas Oliver the famous ruling elder of lioston. On 
the Whale, which arrived May 26, 1632, came Mr. Wilson and Mr. Richard 
Dummer. Most of the Dummers resided at South Stoneham or Swathling, 
where the ancient church bears several Dummer memorials, and this was 
the last residence of Stephen Bachiler in England. A relationship existed 
between the Bachilers and the Dummers which cannot yet be traced.* 

These two ships, the William and Francis and the Whale, were sent out 
by " the Company of husbandmen," sometimes called "the Com|)any of 
London " or " the Company of the Plough," of which company Stephen 
Bachiler was an active and zealous member and was chosen their pastor in 
1629 or 1630.t The energy and zeal with which he laboied to increase 
the society and assist as many emigrants as possible to come to New Eng- 
land, is well set forth in a letter of John Dje and others to Mr. Crispe, and 
those members of the Plough Company, then in New England, dated 
London, 8 jNIarch, 1631-2, and evidently brought in the William and 
Francis or the Whale. J Mr. Bachiler *' adventured " £100 in the Company 
and loaned ihera £67, of which amount £9 was repaid by the freight money 
on his goods. Among the articles he brought over were four hogsheads of 
peas, twelve yards of cloth, two hundred yards of list, a contribution box 
and oaken furniture, which has lasted until this day. Most of the early 
settlers of New England were young, or not past their prime when they 
came to America. Mr. Bachiler was seventy-one when he landed, and yet 
for a score of years thereafter he retained his vigor and for a decade he 
most obstinately contended against Massachusetts Bay in behalf of New 
Hampshire. 

He had planned in England to settle at Newtown (now Cambridge), but 
owing to the disaster which befell the Plough Company in 1631, and having 
received a call from Lynn, Mass., then called Sagus, he proceeded to the 
place last named, where his daughter, Theodate, wife of Christopher Hussey, 
resided. He commenced the exercise of his public ministrations on Sun- 
day, June 8th, 1632, without installation, having formed a church of those 
who desired to join the six or seven persons he brought with him, who 
are said to have been members of the church with him in England. 

bepin 60 miles vp Chenebeck River, because the Patent saith, it must lie ncre two Islands 
which are about 60 miles from the sea. Ffor answer to it the Patent also saith, tlie tract of 
land 40 miles square, must lie on the south siile of Sacadchock River. Now Siicadchock 
riuer rcaclictli l)Ut to Merry Meetinjt, and tlien its braucheil into Bi'gii)scot and (Micncbeck, 
and is no further cald l)y tlic name of Sacadchock. Now Sacadcliock River is a certaine 
and sure phu-c fur one ferine of its bounds, but tlie Islands arc doubtful, which they are, or 
wher tbev arc : & more ouer tlier possession was lirst taken." See Mass. Hist. Coil. Fourth 
Series, Vol. Vll. .316, .3-59, 360. 

* MS. letter of Richard Dummer to Nath'l Bachiler, sen., 14th 4th mo. 1673, " my cossen 
nathaniell bai heler of Hampton." 

t Letter of Rev. Stephen Bachiler to the church in Boston. Mass. Hist. Coll. Fourth 
Series, Vol. VII., 101. 

J Mass. Hist. Coll. Fourth Series, VIZ., 92 and 94 note. 



10 

The first meeting-house in Lynn was a small, plain building, without bell or 
steeple, and stood on the uortheasterii corner of Shepard and Summer 
Streets. It was placed in a small hollow, that it might be better sheltered 
from the winds, and was partly sunk in the earth. It was entered by 
descending several steps.* 

On the first Sunday at Lynn, four children were baptized. Thomas 
Newhall, the first white child born in Lynn, was first presented. Mr. 
Bacliiler put him aside, saying " I will baptize my own child first," meaning 
Stephen Hussey, his daughter's child, born the same week as Thomas 
Newhall. 

Before Mr. Bachiler had been preaching four months at Lynn, he fell 
under "suspicion " of having independent ideas, which he was not ready to 
yield at the dictation of others. 

Thereupon the General Court passed the following order. 

" Octob'' 3, 1632, Mr. Batchel'' is required to forbeare exercising his guifts 
as a past'' or teacher publiquely in o"" pattent, unless it be to those hee 
bronght with him, for his contempt of authority, & till some scandles be 
removed."! 

The word " scandals " was ordinarily used in our early history to denote 
some religious irregularity. It was " scandalous " to conduct worship in 
any way not approved by the rulers. It had acquired that meaning in 
England before the emigration. $ 

It does not appear how far tliis order was obeyed. It will be noticed 
that Mr. Bachiler was left free to preach to those he brought over, and no 
doubt he continued his ministrations. At all events after five months this 
prohibition was removed and he was left free to gather a church in Massa- 
chusetts Bay. He was also present at conferences of the ministers of the 
colony, Sept. 17, 1633, and Dec. 19, 1634, the first meeting having been 
called to consider the settlement of Mr. Cotton, and the other to consult 
what ought to be done if a general governor should be sent out of England, 
and whether it be lawful to carry the cross in their banners. § On the 15th 
of March, 1635, "two of the elders of every church met at Sagus, and 
spent there tliree days. The occasion was, that divers of the brethren of 
that church, not liking the proceedings of the pastor, and withal making a 
question, whether they were a church or not, did separate from church 
communion. Tlie pastor and other brethren desired the advice and help of 
the rest of the churches, who, not thinking fit to judge the cause, without 
hearing the other side, offered to meet at Sagus about it. Upon this the 
pastor, etc., required the separate members to deliver their grievances in 
writing, which they refusing to do, the pastor, etc., wrote to all the churches, 
that, for this cause, they were purposed to proceed against them as persons 
excommunicated; and therefore desired them to stay their journey, etc. 
This letter being read at a lecture at Boston (where some of the elders of 
every church were present), they all agreed (with consent of their churches) 
to go presently to Sagus, to stay this hasty proceeding, etc. Accordingly, 
being met, and both parties (after much debate) being heard, it was agreed 
that they were a true church, though not constituted, at first, in due order, 
yet after consent and practise of a church estate, had supplied that defect j 
and so all were reconciled.! 

* Dow's Hist. Address, Hiimpton, N. H., 1838. 

+ Mass. Colony Records, Vol. I. 

X By " scandalous ministers " (says De Grey} no more was meant than the being tralj 
orthodox, truly conformable to the rules and orders of the church, and faithful and 
obedient sulijccts of his majesty. Ncal's Hist. Puritans, II., 483, note. 

§ Winthrop's N. E., I., * 154. U Ibid., I. * 157. 



11 

He was ailmitted a freeman May 6, ICSo. It seems quite probable that 
he was the minister who dissented from the order of banishmei)t of Roger 
Williams in October, lG3o* as his opinions are known to have agreed 
closelv with those of Williams, and no minister of the twelve churches 
then established possessed his courage in maintaining unpopular opinions. 
It is to be considered also that he had previously been disciplined for 
departure from the established customs, and within three months was 
af»ain in troultle from the same cause. In January, 1635-0, says Win- 
throp, " Mr. Batcheller of Sagus was convented before the magistrates. 
The cause was, for that, coming out of England with a small body of 
six or seven pe.-sons. nnd having since received in many more at Sagus, 
and contention jrrowing between him and the greatest part of his church 
(who had, with tlic rest, received him for their pastor), he desired dis- 
mission for himself and his fii"St members, which being granted, upon sup- 
position that he would leave the town (as he had given out), he with 
the said six or seven persons presently renewed their old covenant, in- 
tending to raise another church in Sagus; whereat the most and chief of 
the town being offended, for that it would cross their intentions of calling 
Mr. Peter or some other minister, they complained to the magistrates, who, 
forseeing the distraction which was like to come by this course, had for- 
bidden him to proceed in any such church way until the cause were 
considered by the other ministers, etc. But he refused to desist. Where- 
upon they sent for him, and upon his delay, day after day, the marshal was 
sent to fetch him.f Upon his appearance and submission and promise to 
remove out of the town within three months he was discharged. "J Peter 
however refused to settle at Lynn, preferring Salem. 

These distractions in the Sagus church continued until Christmas, 1635, 
when a general fast was proclaimed, for that cause and others and presum- 
ably continued until February, 1G36, when Bachiler left Lynn and went 
to Ipswich, where he received a grant of fifty acres of land and a prospect 
of settlement, but from some reason, not yet explained, the plan miscarried. 
It was about this time, on the 17th of April, 1637, that Rev. R. Stansby 
writes Rev. John Wilson from England that he is grieved that " Others 
laye downe the ministry and become private members, as Mr. Bacheler, 
Mr. Jenner, and Mr. Nathan Ward, &c." He adds that this fact and 
others of like nature were now much talted about, and that many worthy 
people were prevented from emigrating to New P^ngland for these reasons, 
and suggests that greater liberty be granted iu the admission of members 
to the church.§ 

Under Mo. 1, 1637-8 Winthrop says, "Another plantation was now in 
hand at Mattakeese (now Yarmouth), six miles beyond Sandwich. The 
undertaker of this was one Mr. Batchellor, late pastor at Sagus (since 
called Lynn), being about seventy-six years of age; yet he walked thither 
on foot in a very hard season. He and his company, being all poor men, 
finding the difficulty, gave it over, and others undertook it."|| 

The inducement which led him to attempt a settlement at Yarmouth 
was undoubtedly the fact that in 1637 a large number of his former parish- 

• Winthrop's N. E., !.,• 170, 171. 

t The ariGfit of a minister l)y a marshal caused much gossip throughout the country. 
See Rev. Jaines Parker's protest to Gov. Wintlnop on being so arrested.' Mass. Hist. Coll. 
Fourtii Series, Vol. VII., 441. 

+ VViiithrop's N. E., I., • 176. 

I Mass. Hist. Coll., Fourth Series, Vol. VII., 10, 11, 12. 

fl Winthrop'8 N. E., !.,• 260. 



12 

ioners removed from Ljnn and commenced a settlement at Sandwich, uear 
Yarmouth, under a grant from Plymouth Colony.* Bachiler's settlement is 
said to have been made in that part of Barnstable (then Yarmouth) called 
Old Town, and was about one hundred miles from Ipswich where he resided. 
His next removal was to Newbury, where, on the 6th of July, 1638, the 
town made him a grant of land, and on the 7th of October, 1638, the 
General Court of Massachusetts, in order to be rid of a troublesome pastor 
and also to strengthen their claim to the territory more than three miles 
north of the Merrimac, granted Mr. Stejjhen Bachiler and his company, 
who had petitioned therefor, liberty to begin a plantation at Winnicunnet, 
now called Hampton, N. H. On Tuesday, October 16, 1638, the settle- 
ment was begun, the journey from Newbury being made in a shallop. On 
the 7th of June, 1639, Winnicunnet was made a town, and further about 
the same time the said plantation (upon Mr. Bachiler's request made known 
to the court) was named Hampton. •)• This name was most probably given 
in honor of Hampton, that is, Southampton, in England. The addition 
"South" was a late addition to distinguish this town from Hampton in 
Mercia. Winthrop in his History of New England repeatedly refers to 
Southampton as Hampton. | It will also be remembered that South Stone- 
ham, adjoining Southampton, and in the gift of St. Mary's of Southampton-, 
was the last residence of Mr. Bachiler in England. In 1639 the inhabitants 
of Ipswich voted to give Mr. Bachiler sixty acres of upland and twenty 
acres of meadow, if he would reside with them three years. He preferred 
his settlement at Hampton. On the 5th of July, 1639, he and Christopher 
Hussey sold their houses and lands in Newbury for " six score pounds," 
and thereafter his entire interest was with the Hampton settlement. The 
town in 1639 granted their pastor three hundred acres of laud for a farm 
besides his house lot, and he gave them a bell for the meeting house. This 
bell remained in use until about February 15, 1703-4, when the towQ 
voted that the selectmen should agree with William Partridge Esq., to pro- 
cure the town a good one from England of about one hundred and thirtie 
weight and that they send to him the oukl bell that is splitt to make of 
that what the sd Mr. Partridg can towards the paying for a new one.§ 
The farm was laid out to him in the extreme southern limits of Hampton 
adjoining Salisbury. In the Hampton record book containing the grants 
in the year 1644 and 1658, copied according to the town vote, concerning 
the copying of grants with witnesses, if necessary, is the following: 

To Steven Bachiler sometimes of Hampton. 

1. Impr. nine acres & half of upland granted unto him, for a house lott : — 

2. & Ave acres of upland aded to the south-east end thereof : fourteuth acres- 
& half : granted unto him : laying between the upland of John Samborn towords 
the south-west; & the upland of Christopher hussey towords the uorth-east 
abutting upon the nieetiug-house green in pt & upland of John Samborn in pt 
towords the south-east : more or less as it is layd out. 

3. Item abouglit fewer acres of swampy grownd granted unto him: layeing 
between the ground of John Samborns towords the north-east : & the ground of 
Christopher hussey towords the south-west : abutting upon the meeting-house 
green towords the north-w^est and the Oxe common towords the south-east ; 
more or less as it is layd out. 

4. Item eleven acres medow granted unto him layeing between the medow 
of henery Ambros towords the north : and the medow of William Samborn 
towords the south : abutting upon the upland towords the west : & a common 
waye by the beach towords the east : more or less as it is layd out. 

* Lewis's Hist. Lynn, 169. t N. H. Provincial Papers, vol. 1, p. 151. 

JWinthrop's N. E., vol. 1, page 2 et seq. § Hampton Records, MSS. Vol. I., 175. 



13 

5. Item f oure acres of medow granted unto him : layeins between the medow 
of Richard Swayncs toword the north : & a common wave towords the south, 
abuttinir upon rorlainc uphind toword the east: & a certain river called Tayler 
river towords the west, more or less as it is layd out. 

6. Item two humlred acres of upland medow & marsh for a farme layeing 
between the line of Solsberry in pt : i<: the farme of Mr. Tymothy Dalton the 
Teacher in pt : & the farme of John H row iie in pt towords the south : & the 
farm of Christopher Iluse towords the north more or less as it is layd outt. 

7. Itt eiirht Acres of upland in tlie East Aild lyinjr between the land of Wil- 
liam Sanii)orn towards the south and (•onio[n] way towanls the north aljuttinji 
upon the fresh medow of the s'' Mr. Bachelder towartls the east and the laud of 
John Cliffords towards the west more or less as itt is layd outt. 

The earliest statement of tlie bounds of Hampton is said to be taken 
from a very old manuscript and is as follows: " Itounded on the north by 
Strawberry Hank, east by the Atlantic Ocean, south by Salisbury and west 
by the Wilderness."* Nine entire towns and parts of two towns have since 
been set oflF or estal)lished from territory then belonging to Hampton. 

In 1639 Rev. Timothy Dalton became teacher of the church at Hamp- 
ton. Mr. Bacliiler remaining as pastor. From his arrival dates the fierce 
conflicts in the church, which must have prevented either minister from 
accomplishing any good in the community. The larger portion of the 
worshippers sided with Mr. Dalton, having been his parishiouers iu Eng- 
land at W'oolverstone, Ipswich, in Suffolk. f 

This gave Dalton an advantage in the contest, though his opponent, 
educated in the most famous English university, of excellent natural abili- 
ties, a keen disputants quick to attack the weak point in his enemy's armor, 
courageous and unyielding, was no mean antagonist. Bacliiler was posi- 
tive, earnest and convincing. He spoke as one having authority and from 
knowledge of the truth. Dalton was younger, more active, and perhaps 
more vehement, than his elder colleague. He was mo e politic than 
Bachiler, but fully as tenacious of his opinions. By his residence in Ded- 
ham he had learned the plans and desires of Massachusetts and earnestly 
espoused them. He t;ad the powerful support of the Bay Colony and was 
perhaps made teacher of the Hampton church in order to combat the 
pastor's independent influence. 

The history of this three-years contest between the pastor and teacher 
of the church at Hampton has nearly passed into obscurity. The town 
records show nothing concerning it. The church records of that date have 
disappeared. The only thing remaining is Winthrop's relation of the 
utterly improbable -tory that Mr. Bachiler, evidently esteemed of pure life 
to that time, at the age of four-score years solicited the chastity of his 
neighlx)r's wife.J Winthrop adds, apparency as a circumstance of aggra- 
vation, that Mr. Bachiler then ha<l "a lusty, comely woman to his wife." 
This was evidently one of " the provoking matters" which Rev. Thomas 
Shepard advised Winthrop might be left to the judgment of others to [lub- 
lish when the copy of his history was privately examined. That Winthrop 
himself would have struck out this record, if he had been alive at its publi- 
cation, is extremely probable. Consider for a moment the evidence against 
this accusation. 

1. The advanced age of the accused and his previous good character 
almost certainly prove the story a fabrication. 

• New York Oljperver, about September, 1882. 
t Hkoisteh for I8S.5, pa«e 288. 

♦ Winthrop's N. E., ii. •ii, 45. 



14 

2. The immorality of the settlers east of the Merrimack was urgerl as 
a reason why that region should come under Massachusetts rule. To sup- 
port that statement numerous people in the two eastern colonies were 
charged with sexual crimes. It is doubtful if any of them were true, 
except in the case of Underhill, who was forgiven as soon as he had trans- 
ferred his allegiance to the Bay, and perhaps Burdett, minister at Agamen- 
ticus, who was indicted for adultery. 

3. Such solicitation was a criminal offence in those days, punishable 
with severe penalities.* No indictment was ever found against Mr. 
Bachiler and no charge ever made against him to any magistrate. On the 
contrary he charged his accusers with the crime of slander before the 
magistrates. 

4. Early in 1644 Mr. Bachiler had a call to settle at Exeter. The 
path between Hampton and Exeter was short and easily travelled. Hamp- 
ton gossip was repeated in Exeter in a few days. If the highly respectable 
people of Exeter had supposed there was a scintilla of truth in the charges 
they would not have called the offender to be their pastor. Moreover the 
prohibition of the General Court of Massachusetts against Bachiler's settling 
at Exeter was based, not on his unfitness, but on the divided state of the 
Exeter church. f If he had been supposed guilty of impurity it would 
have been a conclusive reason against his settlement at Exeter, and we can 
hardly suspect the General Court of dissembling and basing their action 
upon a weaker reason when a stronger existed. Such was not their usual 
custom. 

5. But it is said that he confessed the crime, though he afterwards 
denied it. If true, that would end all controvei*sy. All writers an evidence 
declare that admissions or confessions are worthy of little credence ui.less 
made in the plainest terms and with the clearest understanding of the facts 
of the case. An examination of Winthrop's History would induce us to 
believe that New England was then full of all kinds of sexual crimes, and 
that nearly every person accused confessed his guilt. A slight examina: ion 
of the acts, which were deemed confessions in those days, show their utter 
untrustworthiness as evidence. To refuse to plead either guilty or not 
guilty was wrested into a confession.:]: It is evident that Bachiler never 
confessed in words. The charge was based on some alleged admission by 
conduct. The representation of Bachiler as a whiffling, inconstant man is 
entirely foreign to his character. Winthrop's wards, " He stiffly denied 
it," clearly represent his disposition. He was a positive, obstinate, tena- 
cious, unyielding man. When he made a statement he st( od by his words 
and did not contradict them shortly after. It is almost impossible to be- 
lieve that any excitement arising from the outrageousness of the charge,, 
any indignation aroused by his innocence, or any fear caused by knowledge 
of guilt, could make him on a single occasion only in the course of his long 
and contentious life, uncertain and vacillating. He was evidently mis- 
understood or misrepresented. Probably the latter. The so-called con- 
fesston had this basis and no more. Bachiler's project had failed. The 
Bay Cclony had succeeded in its design against New Hampshire. The 
opposition to Bachiler in the church at Hampton, previously a majority, 
was greatly strengthened by the union of the provinces in 1641. Daltou 

* Hugh Peter's letter to Wintlirop, Mass. Hist. Coll. Fourth Series. Vol. VI. 40> 
Winthrop's N. E. I. *29'2 note. Id. I. *60. Mss. Court Records, Rockingham COs, N. H.» 
passim. 

t Register, Vol. I. 152. 

i Mass. Hist. Coll. Fourth Scries, Vol. VII. 585. 



16 

had succeeded in excomraunicating him. At last, wearied with the contest, 
BachiltT accepted the inevitable and agreed to remove " for peace's sake," 
as he wrote Winthrop. In order to justify to Wintlirop their unlawful act 
in excommunicating IJachiler, Dalton and his adherents told Winthrop 
that Bachiler had confessed the truth of the charge and claimed that his 
offer to remove voluntarily was a confession of guilt. That this act was a 
confession was indignantly denied by the pastor, and so arose the cliarge 
that he confessed and then retracted his confession. What absurd con- 
structions were given to words in those days in order to allege that a 
confession had been made can be seen by examining Wheelwright's letter 
in connection with the statement of the IMassachusetts General Court in 
1644, that Mr. Wheelwright had made " a particular, solemn and serious 
acknowledgment and confession of his evil carriages and of the Court's 
justice upon him for them." 

Winthrop accepted as true the word of Bachiler's enemies, and neglected 
to give the aged pastor a hearing for his vindication, though urgently 
demanded. , 

6. The Hampton town records of this date are silent in regard to this 
matter, and the church records have been missing for many years. They 
can give no testimony either way. 

7. No tradition exists in Hampton or, so far as can be learned, has 
ever existed, giving the name of this woman or her husband, and no written 
evidence of any kind has ever been produced, except the story as preserved 
by Winthrop. Who was this woman? Was the complaint made promptly? 
Was her word worthy of credence? Was she of pure life? Did she per- 
sist in her declaration? Did she afterwards retract the charge? Did she 
live in Hampton many years afterwards, and was she during this time on 
friendly terms with the accused until his removal from town? We cannot 
test the truth of the charge by answers to these questions, for we have no 
evidence on these points. 

8. During all this time Bachiler was carrying on a correspondence with 
Gov. Winthrop and members of his family. If he had confessed the crime 
Dalton would have promptly notified Winthrop of that fact, and Bachiler 
would soon have found that Winthrop knew it. On the contrary, at the 
end of the year 1643 we find him writing to the church at Boston that he 
does not see how he can leave Hampton until he has cleared and vindicated 
the wrongs he has suffered in the church of which he was still a member. 
He demands a trial of his allegations against Mr. Dalton and of Dalton's 
defence. He says that divers elders and brethren have looked slightly into 
the troubles, but there has never been a judicial trial of them. 

He affirms that his excommunication was the foulest matter, both for 
the cause alleged and the real cause (even wrath and revenge). The 
proceedings of Dalton against him he declares to be monstrous and fearful. 

Brook says ''the supposition that the charges of immorality against Hugh 
Peter were true is inconsistent with the intimate relations which he is 
known to have sustained to many eminent men of unquestionable worth."* 

Would Winthrop and his family have been friends and correspondents of 
one whom they knew to be immoral ? 

9. It must e remembered that no charge is so easily made, so readily 
believed without proof, an<l so difficult to disprove. The allegation alone 
is frequently considered full proof. It was not incumbent on the accused 
to prove the negative, that he was not guilty. The burden of proof was 

• Sprague'8 Am. Pulpit, Vol. I. 75. 



16 

on the complainant to make out a case, and it certainly never was proven. 
The testimony of the woman, aided by confession, would have made a 
strong case for the Colony in a criminal prosecution, and as the respondent 
could not testify it would have been impossible to produce any legal evi- 
dence in his behalf. This fact clearly indicates that no confession that 
could have been received in court was ever made. 

In a like case in 1642, supported by similar evidence. Rev. James 
Parker, then of Portsmouth, thought the matter not worthy of complaint 
for lack of evidence, and did not report it to the Massachusetts magistrates.* 

10. Nearly two years after his excommunication the matter was re- 
ferred to some magistrates and elders, and through their mediation he was 
released of his excommunication, but not received to his pastor's office. 
It is undoubtedly to this half undoing of the great wrong done him that 
Bachiler refers in his letter to the church in Boston in 164'3, when he says, 
'• Whiles my cause (tho looked sleitly into by diverse Elders & brethren) 
could never come to a judiciall searching forth of things, & an impartiall 
tryall of my allegations & his defence. "f Was not reversal of the punish- 
ment a vindication of the accused? That the mediators refused to restore 
him to his office of pastor was due to the divided state of the Hampton 
church, not to any delinquency on the pastor's part. 

11. The year he was excommunicated he was chosen umpire in the 
important suit of Cleeve vs. Winter and Winter vs. Cleeve, involving title 
to the land now occupied by the city of Portland, Me. It is possible that 
this appointment was prior to his excommunication, but in 1643 he re- 
ceived a call to Casco. They must then have known the slander. Did 
they discredit it, or did they consider it no wrong? 

12. Even Gov. Winthrop was evidently ashamed of the means used by 
Dalton to destroy the good name of Mr. Bachiler, as he adds to his account 
of the trouble, "his fellow elder Mr. Dalton (who indeed had not carried 
himself in this cause so well as became him and was brought to see his 
failing and acknowlerlged it to the elders of the other churches, who had 
taken much pains about this matter)." How unjustifiable must have beea 
Dalton's conduct to induce Gov. Winthrop to censure him in this manner, 
when Dalton was his friend, perhaps his relative, certainly a relative of 
his son John Winthrop, and an orthodox Puritan, for acts done in interest 
of the Bay Colony. 

The penitence of Dalton, however, could not undo the wrong to Bach- 
iler. Was not the gift of most of her property to Nathaniel Bachiler, 
Senior, the grandson of Rev. Stephen, by the widow Ruth, relict of Rev. 
Timothy Dalton, evidence of an attempt on her part to atone as far as 
possible for the wrong done by her husband to Nathaniel's grandfather ?t 

We have thus briefly indicated a few of the improbabilities of the story as 
it has come down to us. It seems utterly unworthy of belief, and it may 
safely be charged to the bitterness of the disputes which then existed in 
religious and secular matters. The call to Casco, already mentioned, was 
received in the latter part of 1643. George Cleeve wrote Gov. Winthrop 
the 27"* of the 11"* month 1643 that "They (the inhabitants of Lygonia) 
seeing vs about to settle our selues vndar the ministry, and that the Lord 
will gather a Church amongst vs."§ Bachiler communicated with the 

* Mass. Hist. Coll., Fourth Series, Vol. VII. 441, 444. 
t Ma-ss. Hist. Coll. Fourth Series, VII. 102. 
X Will of Ruth Dalton, Family MSS. 
f Willis's Hist. Portland, 881. 



17 

church at Boston and received from the magistrates and elders a letter of 
advice urijiiig the acceptance of the call, presumably because they were 
weary of the bickering at Hampton and thought it would be ended by the 
removal of Mr. Bachiler. 

He replied to this letter of advice, under date of the " 26"* of this last 
m. 1643," objecting that his removal from Hampton to Casco was forced 
by unjust proceedings, as well as by an honorable calling from Casco and 
like honorable advice from tlie church in Boston. He states his unwilling- 
ness to accept the call before he has a hearing of his allegations against 
Dalton and asks for a full trial of the same. He said he had promised to 
go to Casco and confer witli them in regard to the call about the last week 
of March, 1643-4. Tliis call probably came from Cleeve, who had recently 
returned from Kiigland with a commission from Rigby as deputy president 
of Lygonia. While the call to Casco was under consideration, and very 
early in 1644, Mr. Bachiler received a call to Exeter. 

By a letter, dated the 18"" or 19"" of this 3 ra. 1644. written by Mr. 
Bachiler, we learn that the Massachusetts magistrates and elders had 
considered ibis last call and had simply advised Mr. Bachiler to remove 
from Hampton, leaving him apparently free to choose whichever settlement 
he pleased. As he had not accepted the call to Casco he chose to settle at 
Exeter, and notified the Exeter church of his acceptance. He also volun- 
tarily suggested to the Exeter people that they could not ex|)cct to main- 
tain a church and minister long unless they made provision for a parsonage, 
and offered to contribute forty pounds, nearly the whole of his annual 
salary, toward the purchase of Mr. Wheelwright's house for that purpose. 
The day of the helper's meeting was agreed upon, and the persons and 
materials of their intended church. An unexpected event however was to 
prevent his settlement. The Bay Colony, discovering the intended settle- 
ment at Exeter, then within their jurisdiction, promptly forbade the gather- 
ing of a church there. Just ten days after receiving notice of the proposed 
settlement at Exeter, the General Court of Massachusetts, held at Boston 
May 29. 1644, adopted the following order: 

" Whereas it appears to this Co''t that some of the inhabitants of Exceter 
do intend shortly to gather a church, & call M' Bachiler to be their min- 
ister, & forasmuch as the divisions & contentions w*^** are amonge the in- 
habitants there are iudged by this Co't to bee such as for the psnt they 
cannot comfortably & w"' apgbation gceed in so weightly & sacred aifaires, 
it is therefore ordered, that direction shalbe fourthw"* sent to the said in- 
habitants to deferr the gathering of any church, or other such gceeding 
uutill this CVt or the Co""! at Ipswich (upon further satisfaction of their 
reconciliation & fitnes) shall give allowance thereunto."* 

That the true reason for the prohibition was stated in this order is evi- 
dent because that reason could be inquired into by the Ipswich court, and 
upon evidence of their reconciliation and fitness the order of the General 
Court could be revoked. Winthrop gives the same reason and adds, "and 
beside Mr. Batcliellor had been in three places before, and through his 
means, as was supposed, the churches fell to such divisions, as no peace 
could be till he was removed. "f The General Court evidently did not 
care to put its opposition on that ground. Accepting the inevitable Mr. 
Bachiler settled down at Hampton again. He was a church member, but 
probably did not preach. 

• Mass. Colonv Records [52.] 

f \Vinthrop*8 N. E. ii. •1*7, see also ii. 211, 212. 



18 

At a General Court of election, held at Boston, May 29'\ 1644, it was 
ordered that " Mr Bellingham, Mr Sultonstall & Mr Symoiids are ap- 
pointed a committee & have full power to heer & determine all businesses 
at Hampton both about their differences, offences & a new plantation 
according to their several petitions."* 

On the 11th day of June, 1644, on petition of Xpofer Hussie & 18 others 
of ye inhabitants of Hampton, "Mr Bellingham Mr Soltonstall & Mr 
Broadstreet are a comittee to examine and judge the differences between 
the inhabitants. "t 

This was undoubtedly a petition of the adherents of Bachiler, as Hussey 
was his son-in-law. It will be noticed that the commissioners are the same 
as previously appointed, except that Mr. Bradstreet takes the place of Mr. 
Symonds. The first order was adopted the very day the Exeter settlement 
was prohibited. The latter was nearly a fortnight later. Very likely the 
appointment of Mr. Symonds was offensive to Mr. Bachiler. 

The same year, Nov. 12, 1644, "It is ordered by the Massachusetts 
General Court that Mr Samuell Dudley, Mr Carlton, & Mr. John Saunders 
of Salsberry shalbe coinission''s to here & examine all matters concerning 
Mr. Bachiler & Hampton : & they have power to examine witnesses upon 
oath, wherby they may returne the truth of the case to the next Gen'"all 
Co''t of Election. "t 

Under date of July 15, 1644, Winthrop says, "The contentions in 
Hampton were grown to a great height, the whole town was divided into 
two factions, one with Mi*. Batcheller, their late pastor, and the other with 
Mr. Dalton, their teacher, both men very passionate, and wanting discre- 
tion and moderation. Their differences were not in matters of opinion, 
but of practise. Mr. Dalton's party being the most of the church, and so 
freemen, had great advantage of the other, though a considerable party, 
and some of them of the church also, whereby they carried all affairs both 
in church and town according to their own minds, and not with that respect 
to their brethren and neighbors which had been fit. Divers meetings had 
been both of magistrates and elders, and parties had been reconciled, but 
brake out presently again, each side being apt to take fire upon any provo- 
cation. Whereupon Mr. Batchellor was advised to remove. * * * And at 
this court there came petition against petition both from Hampton and 
Exeter: whereu|)on the court ordered two or three magistrates to be sent 
to Hampton with full power to hear and determine all differences there."|| 

May 14, 1635, "In answ"" to Mr. Batchilers peticon, ye Howse of Dep" 
conceave it not meete to allowe him anything, but leave hime at his 
liberty to seeke his remedy at any of ye Courts of Salem or Ipswich. § 
This was probably a petition to the General Court to make him some 
allowance for his services at Hampton. 

About this time, probably, his second wife, Hellen, died at Hampton, 
aged about sixty years. He sold his farm in Hampton to William Howard 
and Thomas Ward in 1 644, and they sold it to the town, who afterwards 
granted it to Rev. John AVheelwright. 

On the 20th of April, 1647, Mr. Bachiler had left Hampton and was 
living in Portsmouth, then called Strawberry Bank. On that day he cou- 

♦ Mass. Colonv Records [.51]. 

+ Mass. Colony Records, Vol. III. 367. 

+ Mass. Colonv Records [62]. 

I Winthrop's iSf. E. ii. *177. 

} Mass. Colony Records, Vol. III. 



19 

veyed all his remaining estate at Hampton, including all grants not ap- 
pointed, to his grandson, John Samborn, who was to give bond to pay the 
grantor's other three grandchildren, namely, Nathaniel Bachiler, Stephen 
Samborn and William Samborn, £20 each.* 

Baciiiler was never settled ministerially at Strawberry Bank, but un- 
doubtedly preached there a part of the time.f Portsmouth then had no 
settled Congregational minister. That "godly man and a scholar," dames 
Parker, who though not settled had preached there several years, had 
shortly before gone to Barbadoes.^f 

On the "27th of dune, 1(547, James Woodward made his will and ap- 
pointed Mr. Bachiler one of his overseers. This will was proved at Dover, 
Sept. 10, I()17.§ 

On the G: 2mo: 1050 the town of Hampton authorized the three men, 
William Fuller, William Esto and P'rancis Peabody, as they are sum- 
monsed, to answer Mr. Bachiler's action at Solsbery Court in the towues 
behalf.ll 

Shortly after his removal to Strawberry Bank Mr. Bachiler's usual good 
judgment seems to have deserted him. He was a widower and obtained 
for a housekeeper a widow, whom he calls " an honest neighbour." He 
soon married her and the match turned out in every way unfortunate. She 
was an adultress and her husband speedily discovered her character. His 
third marriage is usually said to have been contracted early in KJoO, but as 
the town of Kittery granted her a lot, under the name of Mrs. Batcheller, 
on the 14th of February, 1648,1[ the marriage must have taken place in 
1647 or 1648, when he was eighty-six or eighty-seven years old. His 
wife, Mary, was evidently much younger than he. In May, 16o0, he was 
fined ten pounds for not publishing his intention of marriage according to 
law. In October of the same year one half of this fine was remitted. 

Perhaps the following extract from the Gorgeana Records may explain 
this leniency: "At a Generall court houlden at Gorgeana the la"* of 
Goto'' 1650 George Rogers & Mr' Batcheller p'^sented upon vehement 
suspition of incontineucy for liveing in one house together & being in one 
rome. They are to be separated before the next court or to pay 40s."** 

Lewis copies from the York records under date of Oct. 15. 1651, the 
following: " We do present George Rogers and Mary Batcheller, the wife 
of Mr. Stephen Batcheller, minister, for adultery. It is ordered that Mrs. 
Batcheller, for her adultery, shall receive forty stripes save one. at the first 
town meeting held at Kittery, 6 weeks after her delivery, and be branded 
with the letter A."tt These appear clearly to be two separate offences. 

In October of the same year the Court passed the following order : " that 
Mr. Batchelor and his wife shall lyve together as man and wife, as in this 
Court they have publiquely professed to doe: and if either desert one 
another, then hereby the Court doth order that the marshal shall apprehend 
both the said Mr Batchelor and INIary bis wife, and bring them forthwith 
to Boston, there to be kept till the next Quarter Court of Assistants, that 
farther consideration thereof may be had, both of them moving for a 

• Roc'kinfiham Countv Registry of Deeds, Vol. 13, p. 221, 

+ Mass, Hist. Coll. Fourth Series, Vol. VII., 109. 

i 1 Felt's Fee. Hist. 607. 

6 RoeUinpliaiH Registry of Deeds, Vol. I., p. 39. 

11 Hampton Records, Vol. I., p. 31. 

H York Deeds, Vo!. I., Fol. 5. 

•• RKOiSTERfor 1881, p. 44. 

tt Lewis's Hist. Lynn, 162. 



20 

divorce: and this order shall be sufficient order soe to doe: provided not- 
withstanding, tliat if they put in £50 each of them, for their appearance, 
with such sureties as the corauiissioners or any one of them for the county 
shall think good to accept of, that then they shall be under their baile, to 
appear at the next Court of Assistants: and in case Mary Batchelor shall 
live out of the jurisdiction, witliout mutual consent for a time, that then the 
clarke sliall give notice to the magistrate att Boston, of her absence, that 
further order may be taken tlierein." 

It is evident tliat Mr. Bachiler charged his vrife with adultery and prayed 
for a divorce. The hearing was deferred to the next court of assistants. 
She had been indicted for adulter^' in Maine. In view of these fiicts the 
above order is most atrocious. The man is ordered to live as a husband 
with an adultress during the pendency of divorce proceedings for that cause 
and a term in jail is threatened for disobedience of the order with tlie usual 
privilege of giving bail. AYas not Lewis's explanation of this unaccount- 
able order the correct one, namely, that there was a settled determination 
to make his continuance here as uncomfortable as possible? 

After her separation from her husband Mrs. Marj^ Bachiler lived on her 
lot in Kittery, granted her in 1G48, adjoining the Piscataqua River, nearly 
opposite the boundary line between Portsmouth and Newington. What 
became of her and her children after October, 1656, when they were living 
in Kittery, is not known, but the name " Mary Bachellor's highway " is 
given as the northwest boundary of a lot at Kittery conveyed by William 
Hilton of Exeter to his son, Richard, May 4, 1684.* 

On the 14th of October 1651 In answer to the petition of Richard 
Swayne, Wm Swayne and others of the towne of Hampton, itt is ordered, 
that whatsoever goods or lands have binn taken away by Edward Colcord 
or John Samborn, upon pretence of being authorized by Mr. Batchelor, 
either with or without execution, shall be retourned to them from whom it 
was taken ami the execution to be called in, and no more to be graunted 
untill there appear sufficient power from Mr. Batchelor to recover the same 
to the County Court either of Salisbury or Hampton.t 

That is, in 1645 the General Court refers him to the courts at Salem or 
Ipswich for relief in some matter about which he had petitioned them, 
apparently concerning his claim on Hampton for services. In 1647 he 
brought suit in a court of like jurisdiction, at Salisbury, recovers judgment, 
obtains execution and attempts to levy, not on the town, but on private 
property. Naturally he levied on the property of his well-to-do opponents 
and as naturally they objected to paying the town's debts. Justice required 
an order that the town of Hampton should raise the amount of the execu- 
tions in their next tax levy, as the statute allowing persons having execu- 
tions against towns, which they cannot collect, to levy on private property, 
was not then enacted. Instead of such order to levy a tax and pay the 
executions he was ordered to retry his case in court. Hampton was then 
a rich and prosperous town, and up to 1700 paid a larger share of the 
Province tax than any other town in New Hampshire.^ ' 

At length, wearied with the unsuccessful conflict and the constant dis- 
appointment of his expectations, heart-sick with the failure of all his plans 

* York Deeds. Book VI., Fol. 166. 

t Mass. Col. Rec, IV., 67. 

X June 8, 1697, an act was passed in New Hampshire for raisin? £650. Of this sum 
Portsmouth paid £140.1.6, Hampton £187.2.4^, Dover £127.9.7^, E.\eter £115.14, New- 
castle £79.12.6. 



21 

for a quiet rest for Iiis old age in tliat "land of righteousness," whicbr he 
savs, " our New England is,"' he decided to return to England. 

Harried and persecuted hy tlie vindictiveness of tlie bishops o£ Enghmd 
for more tlian a quarter of a century, he came liitlier to escape their perse- 
cution. He found, not the [>eace he sought, but a conflict more bitter and 
persistent than ever he had experienced in Enghind. Persecution here 
was unhampered by any hiws or hmitations. Appeal was in vain. A few 
attempts were made to review uuhiwful acts of tlie colonies in England, but 
the delays were interminable, the process cos^^ly and the results unsatisfac- 
tory. His matrimonial difficulties also led him to return to England. His 
petition for divorce seems not to have been granted, and we know of no 
modification of the order that he should continue to live with his adulterous 
wife. How could he escape that wicked woman except by placing the 
ocean between himself and her? 

Another strong reason for his journey home is found in the changed 
state of jiolitical affairs there. The kingdom no longer existed. Charles 
I. and Strafford had been beheaded. Episcopacy as a state religion had' 
been abolished. Edgehill, Maiston Moor, Naseby and Worcester had 
been fought. The Commonwealth lia<l been established. Oliver Cromwell 
had just become Lord Protector. No wonder the aged minister longed ta 
look upon England under these changed conditions. It lias been said that 
he was a friend of Cromwell. Whether true or not, his friends were now 
at the head of affairs in England and his enemies had been signally de- 
feated. Most of his relatives had been left behind when he came to 
America. Many of his intimate friends here had already gone l)ack. He 
was poor in woildly goods. He had met with severe loss in the failure of 
the Company of Husbandmen. He had received no pay from the Hamji- 
ton Church, except grants of land. His house, books, and " near all his 
substance" to the value of £200 had been burned at Hampton in lG4I. 
His expenses in furthering the Hampton plantation were large. He gave 
all his property in Hampton to his grandchildren in 1G47. He had only 
the amount received for his farm, which must have been greatly dimin- 
ished by his expensive removals, his support at Portsmouth and his fare ta 
England, unless he had saved some portion of the money received for his 
Newbury estate, which is not likely, as Winthrop calls him poor in 1G37, 
when he went to Yarmouth. Anywhere from I60O to I60G has been 
assigned as the date of his return to England.* 

The earlier date is apparently due to the it\accurate statement of hi» 
faithless wife in IGoG, that he hail "transported himself unto ould England 
for many years since," and the fact tiiat nothing is known with certainty 
about his residence liere after 1G50. We have only one means of determin- 
ing the latest time when he was certainly in this country. If his grandson, 
Stephen Samborn, returned to England with Mr. Bachiler, as has always 
been believed, we can tell something about the time of his departure, la 
the Norfolk County Records at Salem, Mass., among Hanipton, N. H. 
births, is found, Dorethia, the daughter of Stephen Samborn and Sarah, 
his wife, on the 2** of the P' month 1653. As less than three years altsence 
is about as short a time as one would dare to call " many years since," it is 
most probable that Mr. Bachiler went back in 1G54, perhaps early in the 
summer, when pleasant weather might be expected on the ocean. 

• Reoister, Vol. I., 323-4. Lewis's Hist. Lynn, 16L Savage's Gen. Diet, sub Bachiler. 
Dow'b Address, Hampton, 1838. 



22 

From what port he sailed and where he landed are unknown. We know 
only that a vagrant tradition represents him as walking in London with 
one of his sons after his return, and that it was almost impossible to de* 
termine which of the two was the elder. The probability of the tradition 
detracts strongly from its credit as actual history. The abandoned woman, 
left here, as if anxious to do her husband all the wrong in her power, de- 
clared in 1656 that she had been credibly informed that he had married a 
fourth wife in England. No other evidence than her worthless and un- 
supported word exists to support this charge, and even if her statement be 
true her information may have been utterly untrustworthy. It was mere 
hearsay at best. No marriage license has yet been discovered. 

In October, 1856, Mary Bachiler petitioned the General Court at Boston 
for leave to marry, notwithstanding lier marriage to Mr. Bachder, setting 
forth the necessities of herself and her two sick children.* This petition 
for divorce was referred to the next County Court at York for examina- 
tion to report to the next court of Assistants.!. It is a sad story exhibited 
by the court records concerning Mary Bachiler, and all will agree that her 
punishment Was severe, being visited even upon her children. Of his life 
in England after his return we know nothing; very likely he lived at Hack- 
ney, where he died, as that pleasant suburb, now a part of the great 
metropolis, was a comfortable residence for retired ministers. 

The last entry concerning Mr. Bachiler is as fcdlows: " The ancient 
Steplien Bachilor of Hampton N. H. died at Hackney, a Village & Parish 
in Middlesex, 2 miles from London in 1660 in the 100'** year of his age. "J 

Thus, with the Commonwealth, passed away his life. It had been 
singularly stormy and contentious. What was his character ? He must have 
hatl rare physical as well as intellectual vigor. From tradition and the char- 
acteristics of his descendants it is probable that he was tall and sinewy, with 
prominent features, especially the nose, a very dark complexion, black, 
coarse hair in early days, white in age, mouth large and firm, eyes black as 
sloes, features long rather than broad, a strong clear voice, rather slow of 
motion and speech, simple in dress, wearing in Lynn a suit of liste which 
he brought from England, obstinate and tenacious of his opinions to a 
marked degree, a powerful preacher, drawing largely from the scripture 
and impressing his hearers with the uncommon power and sanctity of his 
sermons, strong in his friendships and his hates. 

Winthrop classed him among "honest men " when he arrived in 1632, 
and Prince, in his Annals of New England, Appendix to 1632, says 
("From Gov. Winslow and Capt Johnson we learn, That) He (Stephen 
Bachiler) was an ancient minister in England: had been a Man of Fame 
in his Day: was 71 years of Age when he came over: bro't a number of 
Peo{)le with him : and soon became the P' Feeder of the Flock of Christ 
at Lynn (And by several Letters I have seen of his own Writing to the 
R. Mr. Cotton of Boston, I find he was a Gentleman of Learning and 
Ingenuity, and wrote a fine and curious hand.") 

Freeman, in his History of Cape Cod, says,§ " Of Mr. Batchelor much 
has been gratuitously written to his disparagement. From all that we 
gather from his contemporaries, we infer that he was learned, and, in the 
judgment of charity a good man ; but that his whole life, extending through 
nearly a century of years, was singularly pregnant with incidents of trial. 

• Lewis's Hist. Lynn, 161, 162. 

t Mass. Colony Records, Vol. III. [62]. 

1 Rk.gister, xii., 272. 

( Vol. IL, p. 179. 



23 

These were not chiefly tlie result of ejectment for non-conformity- Mr. 
Batchelor's greatest trials were from quite another source : and it is sur- 
prising how far reaching were early attempts to frame excuses tor harassing 
with penalties and pursuin<; witii vindictiveness those who fell under "sus- 
picion." It is equally notable how ready are some at the present day to 
catch the strain and lal)or to justify the detraction even by doubtful tradi- 
tional circumstances developed, whether with or withuut foundation, ex post 
facto." Those interested in heraldry can see a description of Ins coat of 
arms in Morgan's Sphere of the Gentry, printed in 1G61. It consists of a 
plou<di, beneath which is a rising sUn. In the technical language of heraldry 
it is, " vert a plough in Jesse and hi base the sun rising or." The author 
calls it the coat of " Cain, Adam's son," without apparently meaning more 
than that it denoted a husbandman or tiller of the soil, as Cain was. He 
says it did apjtertain to Stephen Bachelor the first pastor of the church of 
Ligonia, in New England : which bearing was answerable to his profession 
in plowing up the fallow ground of their hearts, and the sun appearing in 
that part of the world alluded to his motto ^' sol Jnstitiie exoritur." We 
may guess that he received this coat of arms when he was called us pastor 
of the Plough company about 1G29 or 1630, probably because of his zeal 
in forwarding the interests of that company. Morgan seems to have 
known him only by his connection with the Plough colony at Ligonia, now 
Cape Elizabeth, INIaine. 

The names of four children of Rev. Stephen Bachiler are known with 
certainty. Deborah, born in 1592, child of his first wife; Stephen, born in 
1594, sou of the first wife; Ann, born in IGOl, probably of the first wife; 
and Theodate, who died October 20, 1G49, at Hampton, N. H. That 
Nathaidel Bachiler, senior, of Hampton, was the grandson and not the son 
of our Itev. Ste[)hen Bachiler is pioved beyond question by Rev. Stephen's 
deed to his four grandchildren in 1G47, befoi'e cited, in which Nathaniel 
Bachiler is called his grandson. This cannot by any possibility refer to 
Nathaniel Bachiler, junior, for he was not born until eleven years after the 
deed was made. And yet the statement that Nathaniel Bachiler, senior, 
Was a son of Rev. Stephen, may be strictly correct. If the younger 
Stephen, son of the emigrant Stephen, entered the ministry after leaving 
Magdalen College, Oxford, as is quite probable, and died about 1630, the 
confusion would easily arise. To conjecture is dangerous, but the assump- 
tion so well explains the confusion that it is worth stating in the hope that 
it may be speedily disproved, if untrue. If it shoidd hereafter be confirmed, 
it will probably be found that the Stephen Bachiler who witnessed the will 
of Edmund Alleyn of Hatfield Peverell, P^ssex, February 19, 1615, was 
the younger of tiiat name. Francis and Stephen Bachiler of London iu 
1085, were brothers of Nathaniel, and therefore grandchildren of our Rev. 
Stephen. 

AVhoever considers that Bachilei's life was wasted, becausi; neither riches 
nor temporal honors were obtained by him, knows little of the manner in 
which reforms are accomplished. One thing for which he bitterly con- 
tended is universally conceded, and people wonder that it was ever dis- 
puted. The separation of church and state is recognized as uncjuestionably 
right by all his opponents, and his firm stand in behalf of the liberty of 
New Hampshire loses nothing because it was unsuccessful. Success would 
have left in doul)t his firmness in standing out, when the conseipiences were 
certain to be his practical destruction and utter ruin. We know now that 
he had that firnniess which rendered him utterly regardless of consetjueuces 
to himself, when conscious that his motives and judgment were right. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

IIII1III Jill! iNllillili III ii'iiii III! iir 



014 068 869 1 





imfJ^'r 



kfJ'r^k. {\] 



